Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halydean Corporation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Note that the last "keep" is by the same editor as the first one, so not counted.  Sandstein  14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Halydean Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG. Many of the references do not mention the subject, others are directory entries or press releases. Several constitute original research attempting to prove that this is the oldest publicly traded company in the world, but I could not find independent, reputable sources that bear that out. ubiquity (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Insightfullysaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP Notability requirements for companies, commercial enterprises, and other for-profit businesses: Debate is taking place regarding whether or not this will be named the oldest public company in the world, which is notable. Topic is being discussed on the List of oldest companies talk section, as the company was not in the news until this year. Meets WP:GNG Article was incomplete at the time deletion nomination was made. It is now more complete. The emphasis of the article is on the history of the company, which was established in 1128. Holydean had dead links to this page, which prompted its creation after the availability of media coverage. There is no original research among the 13 independent, reputable sources, although at the time the article was nominated, the article was incomplete, and nominators comments were valid at that time. Insightfullysaid (talk)


 * Comment: I beg to differ. When says "Topic is being discussed on the List of oldest companies talk section," he means that he has mentioned it there. There doesn't seem to be any other discussion. As for the 13 independent, reputable sources," here is my analysis:
 * 1,2,13: a press release saying who Halydean chose as their investment banker. Self-published.
 * 3-5,11: references to off-line registers and records. These are primary sources, and constitute original research (that is, i don't believe they assert "Halydean is the world's oldest company" but instead contain dates and other data from which one might draw the inference)
 * 6-10: do not mention Halydean
 * 12: link to State of Delaware corporate search page. Only proves that Halydean is registered, which does not demonstrate notability.
 * There is not a single appropriate source here demonstrating Halydean's notability. ubiquity (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding references & notability under WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP:
 * 1: Jointly published press release. Contact number provided is for a 3rd party. Confirmation of brief general company description, name of CEO.
 * 2: The same jointly published press release. Reference to the company's claim of age, with quotation, "more than 100 years of operational history."
 * 13: The same jointly published press release. Reference to the company's current activities. These help to augment the article with basic information which is also verifiable on the company's website.
 * 3: This is a public-access government record in the UK, akin to a reference to a secretary of state's registry. Bear in mind that the English language we speak is not the same as the Norman Latin used in 1128 for the original records, so online access is less useful. However, the modern English version was cited by 10 according to Google Scholar, as: Thomson, J. M., Dickson, W. K., Paul, J. B., & Stevenson, J. R. H. (1984).Registrum magni sigilli regum Scotorum. The register of the Great seal of Scotland. Scottish Record Society in conjunction with Clark Constable.
 * 4: This reference is cited so often, it has its own wikipedia page here: Burke's Peerage. From wikipedia's page describing this reference: "Burke’s Peerage has provided authoritative genealogical records of historical families for more than 190 years." Mention in such a prestigious book as Burke's, in and of itself alone, adds notability. Burke's has been used as evidence in court, and is probably used as a reference in Wikipedia thousands of times.
 * 5: The Scottish Records Society reference is available online. I will find the link and add it to the references. This is a journal which is cited in other scholarly literature.
 * 11: This reference was found online, and links need to be provided. This will be added when I can find the link again. I will continue to improve the references by adding links. Agreed that Halydean is not the world's oldest company, but numerous online sources, peer reviewed journal articles, state records, and published books attest to its existence, notability, and age. Please continue to help me as an editor to improve my work to Wikipedia standards.


 * The sources, upon examination, meet WP:SOURCE, and some are better than others. However, none of the sources were self-published sources as described in WP:SPS, although one was jointly published with a bank, claiming to be the contact person. Jointly-published sources may be in question, but this would not affect the notability under WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP, though I do need to improve as a Wikipedia editor, especially in terns of the formatting of references. I have no appropriate source connections to any of the sources. In light of the comment above mistaking Burke's Peerage as "original research"... which is quite mistaken, I will take the blame for not adequately formatting my references which, upon a hasty review, could lead to that incorrect assumption. I hope it has been corrected. I created the article after doing a search on the company and seeing the need, and hope that the quality of the references is now more evident. Other editors will continue to expand this article. I hope that there are no WP:VI issues regarding its original tag for deletion, as all of the original problems have been corrected. User:Insightfullysaid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Likely to be publicly traded soon so I feel WP:LISTED is pertinent. The sources are not ideal but sufficiently reliable for me.  Royal  broil  19:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The very recent press release says "plans to file." So we have no idea whether this will happen. The article doesn't mention it except in the infobox.
 * WP:LISTED says "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above." And yet, I still see no independent sources for Halydean's notability.
 * WP:LISTED also says "major stock exchanges such as the NYSE." Is NASDAQ even considered major? Fewer than a third of NASDAQ stocks have Wikipedia entries. ubiquity (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best as although this may've been founded centuries ago, simply none of this convinces improvements for a better article. Draft and Userfy at best, SwisterTwister   talk  05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Halydean is unique in that it was founded by the Crown owned by the Church (rivaled in Scotland only by St. Andrews), then owned by the State, then owned privately, and is now soon to be listed as a publicly traded company. Under feudalism, Halydean had the legal authority of "pit and gallows," which is to say, to carry out the death sentence. The original charter also specified that the organization was tax exempt. Insightfullysaid (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per SwisterTwister. Music1201 (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Insightfullysaid. In addition to WP:LISTED relevance, Additional improved sources have been added, and a new section to the article on notable ownership. This company is highly unique in its ownership:

Personally, I find it highly notable that a corporation once had a license to kill. This section should be expanded, in my opinion. Insightfullysaid (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding references & notability under WP:COMPANY and WP:CORP: A question was asked, "WP:LISTED also says "major stock exchanges such as the NYSE." Is NASDAQ even considered major?" According to List of stock exchanges The NASDAQ is the second largest exchange in the world, with $1.183 Billion in monthly trading volume. This is more than that of the next two largest combined, which are the London Stock Exchange ($165 Billion) and the Tokyo ($402 Billion). That would be a resounding yes. Insightfullysaid (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.